But it's not for people and organizations who are being funded to put up those videos. If you are deriving revenue from that video stream, whether or not it's a "profit" legally, then it's not unreasonable for you to be expected to pay for it. Advertising with shared revenue is the standard mechanism for paying for youtube videos.
By opting out of ads you're also opting out of your share of the revenue so by definition you're avoiding a potential profit stream. I think you'd have a fair point if it was a publicly-listed company complaining about ads hosted for free on YouTube but come on -- these are free, educational videos hosted for the explicit purpose of democratizing knowledge.
Again, you're not wrong. YouTube is within their rights to do this. I just think it's an incredibly disappointing move from Google.
That's outrageously spun. They're Blender evangelism. Having those videos out there helps Blender get users and visibility and (here's the important part) donations, that they can then use to make Blender better by paying for stuff that Blender needs to get better.
Except for video hosting. You think they shouldn't be required to pay for video hosting the same way they are for member reimbursements. Because... I dunno, Google is evil or something.
It's very likely that Blender is going to have the same problem with Dailymotion and Vimeo too. No one wants to (or has the means) to be a dumping ground for hosting other people's content. We all have to share in this world. As it happens advertising is the mechanism YouTube offers for sharing revenue.